At its most essential level, education empowers people and gives them the baseline knowledge and skills that are necessary for survival as adults in the modern world.[1] Through education, skills such as literacy, numeracy, the ability to effectively communicate and work harmoniously with others for the realization of collective goals are acquired. Over and beyond basic skills, jobs, and careers, Eleanor Roosevelt believed that education is important because it gives good citizens the ability to contribute towards their communities and countries.[2] Education has seen many changes, advancements, modifications, and one of the products of the never-ending metamorphosis is the STEM.[3] STEM is a curriculum founded on the basic idea of educating and equipping learners with knowledge, skills and expertise in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, all in an interdisciplinary and practical approach.[4] Berland clarifies that rather than the curriculum teaching the four disciplines separately and as discrete subjects, it endeavors to amalgamate them into an interconnected learning archetype based on actual world applications.[5] Berland further notes that although the United States has led the fields since time immemorial, the number of students who continue to show interest in the subjects catered for by the curriculum has since been reducing with most of them proving proficient in Mathematics. The fact that much of the STEM education program aims at attracting underrepresented populations has implored governments to invest a lot of funds and resources to see to it that the curriculum succeeds.[6]
This paper seeks to identify and critically discuss wider contextual territories and different approaches and perspectives in STEM education. The fact that STEM education is fast becoming one of the most favored curriculum across most countries right from the United States to Australia and many countries of Asia means that the approaches, perspectives, implementation, and assessment is different based on individual countries. Through locating, interpreting, and critically analyzing theoretical and conceptual ideas and research evidence from different sources that relate to STEM, a more insightful and far-reaching examination of the curriculum is achieved. It further goes ahead to identify, question, and reflect on key issues that in the STEM educational curriculum relating them to conceptual insights in ways that extend practice’s thinking and understanding. With the many theories that have been put forward to explain the practice, the paper goes ahead to explore the various complex ways in which the practice and theories put forward inter relate. This paper seeks to find, evaluate, and put forward recommendations that can help make the curriculum successful. It is not just enough to invest federal funds and set up committees to be in charge of STEM education since the challenges and odds that hold back the curriculum are more than what meets the eye.
STEM is fast becoming a central preoccupation of legislators and policy makers across many parts of the world owing to the ever-increasing shortage of high skill labor.[7] The STEM education curriculum particularly is Australia according to the consultant’s report is driven by the desire to lift the quality and skills of human capital equipped by the latest knowledge and techniques in research, science, engineering, technology, and economics in a bid to commercialize the economy and enhance innovativeness. It is through systems such as STEM that graduates are not only prepared for careers in sciences, but also management.[8] The centrality of STEM that continues to drive governments across the planet to encourage most if not all of its students and the population at choose careers and disciplines in STEM lies in the beauty of having a well-informed and educated people in the field of science.[9] According to the Programme for International Students Assessment (PISA), which aims at comparing students’ performance and achievement in science and mathematics at a tender age of 15 under the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD), nations and systems with the largest group of students who are knowledgeable in mathematics, science and technology are exceptionally strong in research, scientific output, and their economic growth is exponential and steady.[10] Such countries include China, Singapore, Taiwan, Switzerland and Finland. Whether these findings imply intellectualism precedes economic prosperity or it is economic prosperity that influences wide and deep intellectual formation is not clear. However, one thing that stands out is the fact that science, economic growth and dynamism, and universal learning form a single interdependent system that leads to betterment and growth in all aspects.[11]
STEM as an acronym arose in the United States with its use in education aimed at addressing the ever-growing shortage of qualified and well-equipped candidates for technical professional jobs.[12] Most institutions in the US use and follow guidelines that put forward by the National Science Foundation (NSF) on what define and constitute STEM. According to the U.S Department of Education, significantly few American students today pursue careers in the STEM fields with an alarmingly inadequate pipeline of tutors who possess skills and expertise in the respective fields. Studies have shown that alongside having only 16% of high school students being interested in STEM careers, only 28% of those who join high school in the united states as freshmen show interest in one or more of STEM related fields out of which 57% end up losing interest during and by the time they complete their studies.[13] This has led to the establishment of the Committee on STEM Education (CoSTEM) consisting of up to 13 agencies and the Department in charge of education in the US. The focus of CoSTEM is to improve STEM instruction, increase youth engagement with various STEM disciplines, and designing graduate learning for the STEM labor force of the future. Through various institutions, the government supports STEM teachers through training and development programs such as the incentive funds, Teacher Quality Partnership among other programs.
In Australia, STEM has received criticism and praise in equal measure with the recent ranking of 2009 placing the country at the 7th position in the field of science and 13th overall in mathematics.[14] Even though Australia and USA are among the first countries to adopt STEM education, their relative performance and PISA scores have significantly dropped thanks to the emergence of strong and high performing Asian systems. According to the consultants’ report, Australia’s average PISA score in mathematics dropped from 524 to 514 between 2003 and 2009.[15] Additionally, the higher level STEM system has since reordered a drop in the number of year 12 students who enroll over the decades with a drop from 21% to 14% between 1992 and 2010 in the physics discipline. The Australian system has a strong participation in sciences but there is a weakness in mathematics and engineering according to OECD which takes note of tertiary entrants.[16]
STEM in countries where the system is strong and productive share certain characteristics. China and Finland systems have well-structured systems that ensure that teachers are well motivated and enjoy their work as professionals.[17] In Finland, all teachers are holders of a Master’s degree, the requirements to join the professions are tighter, the best and strong teachers are paid to work in schools that serve poor families, and those perceived to be slow learners. In china, teachers enjoy constant increment in their salaries not only in terms of seniority, but also through professional improvement programs and promotions through demonstration of an improving standard of work.[18] Russia, Germany, Singapore, and most European countries strong in STEM have undivided commitment to content in each discipline with the main focus on knowledge.[19] Expert development in such countries is chiefly focused on the content knowledge of each discipline and not generic programs.[20] This leads to most students enrolling in engineering partly because these nations are also sturdy in manufacturing.
One of the most controversial and contentious issues researchers and those in charge of curriculum development lies in the discrepancies and differences that characterize the interpretation of STEM education and how it should be integrated.[21] This is due to the verity that the definition of STEM education has been defined differently ranging from the disciplinary approach to the complex trans-disciplinary approach. However, with the ever growing pool of knowledge in the discipline that form the STEM, Yeping Li introduces a new perspective and approach called Multi-disciplinary that seeks to add on to the already existing disciplinary-multidisciplinary approaches. This opened up a new discussion about the need for researchers and developers to embrace the phenomenon of spanning boundaries as a feature of incorporated STEM perspectives.[22]
Vasquez et al. present a wide-ranging and comprehensive perspective on STEM integration that allows what can be termed as boundary crossing between different levels of integration in a continuum.[23] First is the disciplinary perspective, which emphasizes that concepts and skills be learnt separately and independently in each discipline. This approach looks at science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics as separate entities, which ought to be looked at individually. According to Vasquez et al, this form of integration does not allow for crossing of boundaries across disciplines that make up STEM as an educational system. This approach is the one of the major causes of inequitable representations of disciplines in the STEM education system it is not surprising that in most instances, STEM has ended up being coined ‘Science’ because the discipline is more often than not over represented as compared to the rest of the disciplines.[24] A classical example of this uneven representation of disciplines was at the 2014 STEM conference in Vancouver where of the 141 customary papers presented, 45 % were dedicated to science, 12 % to technology, 9 % engineering, 16 % to mathematics and fascinatingly, while 18 % that remained were considered “general” with a number of papers in this class covering two or more of the STEM disciplines.[25] The multidisciplinary approach or form of integration on the other hand maintains that concepts and skills in each discipline can be learned separately just like in disciplinary although this is done under one common theme.[26] In this case, information, expertise, knowledge, and skills are taught separately according to the discipline but all geared towards addressing a common problem, title or topic.[27] Similar to the disciplinary approach, this perspective of integration has a room for uneven representation of disciplines.
Interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary approaches of STEM have however been seen to gain commitment and inclination by most researchers and curriculum developers in the united states over the years.[28] The interdisciplinary approach holds that concepts and skills that are knit and linked from any of the disciplines of STEM are learnt together with the aim of deepening and cementing knowledge and skills. The trans-disciplinary approach goes beyond the acquisition of knowledge and skills from the disciplines that make up STEM to the actual application of the skills to real problems in real life. It holds that information and dexterity learnt in from two or more disciplines is transferred and applied to actual problems in real life situation with the aim of shaping and making the learning experience hands on and practical. The STEM task force report of 2014 came to a conclusion that education does not end at learning skills from a system of conveniently integrated disciplines, but rather, it should encompass real world and problem based learning that brings together all the four disciplines through a cohesive, active and participatory learning approach. The report maintains that the reason why disciplines should not be taught in isolation is because in real life or in the work force, these disciplines do not exist in isolation but in an integrated and intertwined manner. In an interdisciplinary world, the interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary approaches are better placed to succeed that the disciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches in the integration of STEM.[29]
The concept or idea of an integrated STEM education system continues to stir different opinions and debates across researchers and developers of the curriculum. STEM education system has been pondered upon in the United States since the 1990’s; but few teachers and stakeholders seem to properly understand how the system is operated and executed decades later.[30] Studies have indicated that the urgency and desire to see countries such as the US improve their achievements in the fields of Science, technology, engineering and mathematics is the reason governments continue to spend heavily and affect massive educational reforms that aims at empowering and strengthening STEM. In the process of producing a well endowed workforce thanks to the STEM education system, creativity and arts is threatened as emphasis and focus shifts away to STEM.[31] Hoachlander and Yanofsky note that STEM subjects are often taught differently and totally disconnected from design, creativity and arts.[32] However, in newer systems that are proving strong and competitive such as China, STEM education is slowly evolving to incorporate the creative part of it so that while the much needed STEM knowledge and skills are acquired; the creative and artistic part is not lost. This has seen emergence of STEAM that includes arts which in itself is a booster to the engineering part of the original STEM concept.[33] It is however worth noting that this approach of having all disciplines in STEM alongside other disciplines such as arts and disciplines might not be possible in all circumstances especially if interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary forms of integration are the only approaches in use.
Most content, knowledge, skills, and abilities can be grounded within the theory of situated cognition. The theory of situated cognition is founded on the concept that the understanding of how and when knowledge and skills can be used is as important as learning the knowledge and skills themselves.[34] It goes ahead to recognize the importance of both physical and social elements in learning any activity. The theory insists that when a person develops a skill around an activity, then the context of that activity becomes indispensable to the learning process. Often, when the process of learning is situated in a specific context, learning becomes not only authentic but also relevant representing an actual experience found in the real world. This theoretical idea goes hand in hand with the trans-disciplinary STEM integration approach which emphasizes the importance of real life application of the learnt knowledge and skills.[35] Ultimately, there are some contents in STEM that can hardly be situated in genuine contexts. This becomes a problem and hence this theory is limited only to content that can be made practical through positioned learning approaches.
Kelley and Knowles present a proposed conceptual framework for an integrated STEM education in a graphical form.[36] It is a block and tackle of four pulleys where each pulley represents a universal practices that occur within the four disciplines that make up STEM bound by a rope that represent community practice. Same way the pulley system must work together in a complex relationship to make load lifting easier, is the same way all disciplines in STEM education must be integrated to produce the best results. In a nutshell, the idea behind the conceptual framework is that all domains that make up an integrated STEM system must not always occur during the same learning encounter, but educators and learners must always keep in mind the relationship that can be made real across domains by simply making use of the community of practice (engaging the rope).[37] The success, usefulness and workability of an integrated STEM are all realized through putting what is learnt into practice to solve real life problems.[38]
The STEM education system is faced with various issues and shortcomings that are unique according to territories and continue to define it across the board. Discrepancies in content knowledge and interdisciplinary processes amongst different nations has led to different stakeholders questioning the credibility and quality of their curricula given that a lot of importance is attached to National and International assessments. Nations and systems that enjoy significantly high international outcomes and STEM schema have modernized, updated and strong curricula that focus on current issues and 21st century disciplinary pools of knowledge.[39] Having STEM education is not enough as it calls upon all players from teachers, to students and all stakeholders to ensure that generic skills are nurtured, there is deep conceptual understanding and interdisciplinary approach of integration is realized.[40]
The capacity to evaluate students’ outcomes and in a STEM education system is challenging, inconclusive and generally limited especially from a long-term viewpoint. It is only through student outcomes that the effectiveness and efficiency of any curriculum can be measured as students are always the product of any education system. It becomes difficult to evaluate student commitment, the level of motivation and insistence in an integrated STEM system where each discipline is to be given equal attention and coverage.[41] Furthermore, the author argues that of the four disciplines that make up STEM, mathematics is the single most difficult discipline to promote through integration. Evaluation and assessment of achievement in all disciplines in a STEM system ought to be encouraged although the means through which this can be done is still at its embryonic stages and further research is paramount as Honey et al asserts.[42]
Throughout the various systems and nations that STEM education has been embraced, there is a diminishing focus on the importance and role of mathematics and how its principles influence the understanding of the remaining three disciplines.[43] Researchers and studies have frequently postulated that STEM provides a platform for fostering mathematical knowledge and skills but how mathematical knowledge acquired reciprocally enhance the other disciplines has is not emphasized. The profile of mathematics in STEM is fast dropping, a reality that will negatively affect the whole system. Mastery of the core knowledge and an in-depth understanding of the principles of mathematics is paramount if the image and profile of mathematic in stem is to enhanced and upheld. Adequate effort should be employed to assist students and teachers make connections and enhance integration with other disciplines in STEM education.[44]
In the world today, most of the English speaking countries with the exception of Canada have been implored in the widespread talk of ‘STEM crisis.’[45] This is because of the ever-declining performance in global comparisons in terms of achievement and the eve- rising Asian and other non-English speaking systems. In countries such as the United States, inventive programs that are closely related to STEM have been introduced in order to help improve performance.[46] However, such interventions continue to bear little if any results suggesting that there is a missing dynamic of improvement is countries deemed to be pioneers and front-runners of the STEM education.[47] The debate about the competency of teachers and tutors is more rampant in these systems, that is, Australia, USA, and New Zealand.
With other studies showing that the number of people showing interest in STEM careers after high school education is extremely low, various reports show that the rate of unemployment within the STEM fields is increasing, a pointer to the fact that the is a drop in the number of jobs rather than human resource.[48] The position of most nations is that the number of professionals in STEM fields should be increased considerably even though job creation is not being emphasized. The competitiveness of STEM fields has forced most systems to embrace problem-oriented trans-disciplinary integration approach that not only imparts learners with knowledge and skills but also experience and expertise.[49] This relates to the theoretical idea of situated context which emphasizes the need to use information acquire to solve real life problems.
The discipline of mathematics in the STEM education system continues to record the lowest continuum through higher levels of learning across most nations and systems.[50] According to Goodrum et al, mathematics is closely followed by Physics which is part of the broader discipline science.[51] Germany recorded the highest percentage of new entrants into the field of mathematics in 2010 at 2.5%, something that is attributable to its manufacturing nature.[52] Participation at higher level in the field of engineering is particularly higher in Finland, where STEM system is among the best in the world. This is followed by Israel and Korea whose manufacturing power and surplus production is commendably good. The differences witnessed in countries with almost similar STEM systems is prove enough that the amount of attention given to a discipline or group of discipline varies from place to place according to the dominating field or fields. Countries that are known to be technological hubs have a tendency of giving more attention to that particular discipline in STEM in order to retain their competitiveness and leadership.[53] Systems are less likely to give equal attention to all the disciplines in STEM, and this is one of the reasons some disciplines like mathematics continue to be sidelined and the knowledge base ignored.
Integrated STEM education carries the promise of a better future in the multifaceted fields of science, Technology, engineering and mathematics. However, its widespread adoption across many nations across the world is has opened up novel directions and challenges that require global, national and above all individual contributions to define and solve. Its uniqueness from the traditional science and mathematics education lies in the blended learning environment and its application to real life problems; which in itself is the essence of education. It is through STEM that challenges of the 21st century that include ambiance change, overpopulation, human resource management, food shortage, lack of proper and quality healthcare, declining supply of clean water, diminishing energy sources and natural calamities can be curbed and if not totally eradicated, their effects reduced for the good of human kind on planet earth.
Bibliography
BECKER, KURT, AND KYUNGSUK PARK. “Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis.” Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research 12, 5/6(2011): 23-25.
BERLAND, LEEMA K., “Designing for STEM integration.” Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER) 3, 1(2013): 3-5.
BREINER, JONATHAN M., SHELLY SHEATS HARKNESS, CARLA C. JOHNSON, and CATHERINE M. KOEHLER., “What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships.” School Science and Mathematics 112, 1 (2012): 3-11.
BROWN, JOHN SEELY, ALLAN COLLINS, and PAUL DUGUID., “Situated cognition and the culture of learning.” Educational researcher 18, 1 (1989): 32-42.
BRYAN, LYNN A., TAMARA J. MOORE, CARLA C. JOHNSON, AND GILLIAN H. ROEHRIG. “Integrated STEM education.” STEM roadmap: A framework for integration (2015): 23-37.
CARTER, AMBER. “Why is there such an emphasis on STEM subjects?.” Science Education News 65, 3 (2016): 11.
CHARETTE, ROBERT N. “The STEM crisis is a myth.” IEEE Spectrum 50, no. 9 (2013): 44-59.
COALITION, STEM EDUCATION. “Recommendations on Stem Education Prepared for the 2016 Presidential Candidates (January 2016) http://www. stemedcoalition. org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01.” Note-Memo-to-Presidential-Campaigns-on-STEM-Education-1- 21-16-Final. pdf.
ENGLISH, LYN. D. “STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration.” International Journal of STEM education 3, 1 (2016): 3.
ENGLISH, L. D., and DAVID KIRSHNER, eds., Handbook of international research in mathematics education (London: Routledge, 2015).
ENGLISH, LYN D., AND JULIE GAINSBURG. “12 Problem Solving in a 21st-Century Mathematics Curriculum.” Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2015): 313.
FITZALLEN, NOLEINE. “STEM education: What does mathematics have to offer?.” In MERGA, pp. 237-244. 2015.
FORSTHUBER, BERNADETTE, AKVILE MOTIEJUNAITE, and ANA SOFIA DE ALMEIDA COUTINHO. Science Education in Europe: National Policies, Practices and Research. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, European Commission. Available from EU Bookshop, 2011
FREEMAN, BRIGID. “Science, mathematics, engineering and technology (STEM) in Australia: practice, policy and programs.” Australian Council of Learned Academies, Melbourne (2013).
GOODRUM, DENIS, AMELIA DRUHAN, AND JOANNA ABBS. “The status and quality of year 11 and 12 science in Australian schools.” (Canberra, Australia: Australian Academy of Science, 2012).
HOACHLANDER, GARY, and DAVE YANOFSKY. “Making STEM real.” Educational Leadership 68, 6 (2011): 60-65.
HOACHLANDER, GARY. “Integrating S, T, E, and M.” Educational Leadership 72, no. 4 (2015): 74-78.
HONEY, MARGARET, GREG PEARSON, and HEIDI SCHWEINGRUBER. “STEM Integration in K–12 Education.” (2014).
KELLEY, TODD R., AND J. GEOFF KNOWLES. “A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education.” International Journal of STEM Education 3, no. 1 (2016): 1-11.
KUENZI, JEFFREY J. “Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action.” Congressional Research Service (2008).
LI, YEPING. “International Journal of STEM Education-a platform to promote STEM education and research worldwide.” International Journal of STEM Education 1, 1 (2014): 1.
MARGINSON, S., R. TYTLER, B. FREEMAN, and K. ROBERTS. “STEM: Country comparisons. Report for the Australian Council of Learned Academies.” (2013).
MOORE, TAMARA J., AND KARL A. SMITH. “Advancing the State of the Art of STEM Integration.” Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research 15, 1 (2014): 5.
PEÑA-LÓPEZ, ISMAEL. “PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework. Mathematics, Reading, Science, Problem Solving and Financial Literacy.” (2012).
PRINSLEY, ROSLYN, AND KRISZTIAN BARANYAI. “STEM skills in the workforce: what do employers want.” Office of the Chief Scientist, Canberra (2015).
PRUITT, STEPHEN L. “The next generation science standards: The features and challenges.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 25, no. 2 (2014): 145-156.
SILK, ELI M., ROSS HIGASHI, ROBIN SHOOP, and CHRISTIAN D. SCHUNN. “Designing technology activities that teach mathematics.” The Technology Teacher 69, 4 (2010): 21-27.
STORM, GATHERING. “Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.” (2006).
VASQUEZ, JO ANNE, CARY IVAN SNEIDER, and MICHAEL W. COMER. STEM lesson essentials, grades 3-8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Heinemann, 2013.
VASQUEZ, JO ANNE. “STEM–Beyond the Acronym.” Educational Leadership 72, no. 4 (2015): 10-15.
XUE, YI, and RICHARD C. LARSON. “STEM Crisis or STEM Surplus: Yes and Yes.” Monthly Lab. Rev. 138 (2015): 1.
[1] Stephen L. Pruitt, “The next generation science standards: The features and challenges.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 25, no. 2 (2014): 147
[2] Amber Carter, “Why is there such an emphasis on STEM subjects?.” Science Education News 65, no. 3 (2016): 11.
[3] , Gathering Storm, “Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.” (2006), 106.
[4] Gary Hoachlander, “Integrating S, T, E, and M.” Educational Leadership 72, no. 4 (2015): 75
[5] Leema K. Berland, “Designing for STEM integration.” Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER) 3, 1(2013): 3.
[6] Gary Hoachlander and Dave Yanofsky. “Making STEM real.” Educational Leadership 68, no. 6 (2011): 62.
[7] Kurt Becker and Kyungsuk Park. “Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis.” Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research 12, 5/6 (2011): 23.
[8] Breiner et al. “What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships.” School Science and Mathematics 112, 1 (2012): 6.
[9] Goodrum et al. “The status and quality of year 11 and 12 science in Australian schools.” (Canberra, Australia: Australian Academy of Science 2012), 51.
[10] Bryan et al “Integrated STEM education.” STEM roadmap: A framework for integration (2015): 27.
[11] Gary Hoachlander and Dave Yanofsky. “Making STEM real.” Educational Leadership 68, no. 6 (2011): 62.
[12] Forsthuber et al. Science Education in Europe: National Policies, Practices and Research. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, European Commission. (Available from EU Bookshop, 2011), 89
[13] Forsthuber et al. Science Education in Europe: National Policies, Practices and Research. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, European Commission. (Available from EU Bookshop, 2011), 89
[14] Brigid Freeman, “Science, mathematics, engineering and technology (STEM) in Australia: practice, policy and programs.” (Australian Council of Learned Academies, Melbourne 2013), 37
[15] Peña-López, Ismael. “PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework. Mathematics, Reading, Science, Problem Solving and Financial Literacy.” (2012), 98
[16] Noleine Fitzallen, “STEM education: What does mathematics have to offer?.” (In MERGA, pp. 237-244. 2015), 279.
[17] Stephen L. Pruitt, “The next generation science standards: The features and challenges.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 25, no. 2 (2014): 147
[18] Brigid Freeman, “Science, mathematics, engineering and technology (STEM) in Australia: practice, policy and programs.” (Australian Council of Learned Academies, Melbourne 2013), 34
[19] Silk et al., “Designing technology activities that teach mathematics.” The Technology Teacher 69, no. 4 (2010): 26
[20] Gary Hoachlander and Dave Yanofsky. “Making STEM real.” Educational Leadership 68, no. 6 (2011): 62
[21] Bryan et al. “Integrated STEM education.” STEM roadmap: A framework for integration (2015): 24.
[22] Lyn D. English, “STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration.” International Journal of STEM education 3, no. 1 (2016): 3.
[23] Vasquez et al., STEM lesson essentials, grades 3-8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. (Heinemann, 2013), 68.
[24] L. D. English and David Kirshner, eds., Handbook of international research in mathematics education (Routledge, 2015), 67
[25] Lyn D. English, “STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration.” International Journal of STEM education 3, no. 1 (2016): 3.
[26] Vasquez et al., STEM lesson essentials, grades 3-8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. (Heinemann, 2013), 68.
[27] Roslyn Prinsley and Krisztian Baranyai. “STEM skills in the workforce: what do employers want.” Office of the Chief Scientist, Canberra (2015), 101.
[28] Tamara J. Moore and Karl A. Smith. “Advancing the State of the Art of STEM Integration.” Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research 15, no. 1 (2014): 5.
[29] Gary Hoachlander and Dave Yanofsky. “Making STEM real.” Educational Leadership 68, no. 6 (2011): 63
[30] Robert N. Charette, “The STEM crisis is a myth.” IEEE Spectrum 50, no. 9 (2013): 47.
[31] Lyn D. English and Julie Gainsburg. “12 Problem Solving in a 21st-Century Mathematics Curriculum.” Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2015): 313.
[32] Gary Hoachlander and Dave Yanofsky. “Making STEM real.” Educational Leadership 68, no. 6 (2011): 63
[33] Marginson et al, “STEM: Country comparisons. Report for the Australian Council of Learned Academies.” (2013), 56.
[34] Brown et al. “Situated cognition and the culture of learning.” Educational researcher 18, 1 (1989): 35.
[35] Lyn D. English, “STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration.” International Journal of STEM education 3, no. 1 (2016): 3.
[36] Todd R. Kelley and J. Geoff Knowles. “A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education.” International Journal of STEM Education 3, no. 1 (2016): 6.
[37] Todd R. Kelley and J. Geoff Knowles, 8
[38] Jo Anne Vasquez, “STEM–Beyond the Acronym.” Educational Leadership 72, no. 4 (2015): 13
[39] Lyn D. English, “STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration.” International Journal of STEM education 3, no. 1 (2016): 3.
[40] Gary Hoachlander, “Integrating S, T, E, and M.” Educational Leadership 72, no. 4 (2015): 74
[41] Yeping Li, “International Journal of STEM Education-a platform to promote STEM education and research worldwide.” International Journal of STEM Education 1, no. 1 (2014): 1.
[42] Honey et al. “STEM Integration in K–12 Education.” (2014), 13.
[43] Lyn D. English and David Kirshner, eds. Handbook of international research in mathematics education. (Routledge, 2015), 56
[44] Coalition, STEM Education. “Recommendations on Stem Education Prepared for the 2016 Presidential Candidates (January 2016) http://www. stemedcoalition. org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01.”
[45] Robert N. Charette, “The STEM crisis is a myth.” IEEE Spectrum 50, no. 9 (2013): 48.
[46] Yi Xue and Richard C. Larson. “STEM Crisis or STEM Surplus: Yes and Yes.” Monthly Lab. Rev. 138 (2015): 1.
[47] Lyn D. English and Julie Gainsburg. “12 Problem Solving in a 21st-Century Mathematics Curriculum.” Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2015): 313.
[48] Silk et al., “Designing technology activities that teach mathematics.” The Technology Teacher 69, no. 4 (2010): 24.
[49] Jeffrey J. Kuenzi, “Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action.” (2008), 47
[50] Lyn D. English, “STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration.” International Journal of STEM education 3, no. 1 (2016): 3.
[51] Goodrum et al. “The status and quality of year 11 and 12 science in Australian schools.” (Canberra, Australia: Australian Academy of Science 2012), 56.
[52] Lyn D. English and David Kirshner, eds. Handbook of international research in mathematics education. (Routledge, 2015), 67
[53] Silk et al., “Designing technology activities that teach mathematics.” The Technology Teacher 69, no. 4 (2010): 24.
